[QUOTE=U2DMfan;7688037]1) One (or is it two?) of Jesus' apostles is known as a Zealot.
Simon the Zealot, IIRC.

That seems to be the way it most often translated. Each of the 12 Disciples brought their distinct personalities to the "team".

That does not mean that Jesus was ever considered a Zealot in his lifetime - or the immediate era after his death (Paul's letters) or the Gospels decades later - or by the Church Fathers (those writing in the second and third centuries).

That does not mean that Jesus was ever considered a Zealot in his lifetime - or the immediate era after his death (Paul's letters) or the Gospels decades later - or by the Church Fathers (those writing in the second and third centuries).

I am of the mind that the book was likely biased anyway.

A truly objective historical view of Jesus is not going to come from a believer, Christian, Jew or Muslim, as much as they want to claim objectivity. But especially one that was a believer in Jesus and is now lapsed and onto another belief system. It's like a...potential double whammy of bias. Does this mean it HAS to be biased? No. But it likely is. And considering its fairly unique POV for Aslan, it lends even more likelihood. I'm no religious expert (though very interested in the subject), just using deductive reasoning.

If I wanted a historical account from a lapsed Christian, I would tend to listen more so to someone like John Dominic Crossan.

A truly objective historical view of Jesus is not going to come from a believer, Christian, Jew or Muslim, as much as they want to claim objectivity. But especially one that was a believer in Jesus and is now lapsed and onto another belief system. It's like a...potential double whammy of bias. Does this mean it HAS to be biased? No. But it likely is. And considering its fairly unique POV for Aslan, it lends even more likelihood. I'm no religious expert (though very interested in the subject), just using deductive reasoning.

If I wanted a historical account from a lapsed Christian, I would tend to listen more so to someone like John Dominic Crossan.

If he told you he was a believer in the Tooth Fairy, and was writing a book saying Santa Claus wasn't real, and this wasn't in the context of Islam and FOX News, would you really even need to ask that question?

If he told you he was a believer in the Tooth Fairy, and was writing a book saying Santa Claus wasn't real, and this wasn't in the context of Islam and FOX News, would you really even need to ask that question?

So he's a Muslim first and a scholar second?

Shouldn't we at least accord him the respect he deserves based upon his academic and publishing history and weigh his arguments rather than summarily dismissing him because he's a Muslim?

I typed this up a few times and kept hating the way I was wording things, so I hope I don't screw this up and you can get the gist.

He's not just studying scripture and teachings and writing about the nature of religion. He's aiming to write an historical book about an historical figure. That's not the same kind of scrutiny.

That he is a believer at all, of any religion, is the bias against historical objectivity in this pursuit. His Islamic belief is potentially a separate bias. Taken together, along with the FOX News debacle, makes the subject much more muddy than it needs to be.

If he were a believing Christian writing the same book, it's the same issue with objectivity. So why is Aslan supposed to be offered more benefit of the doubt? That he's also both a Muslim and an ex-Christian makes his intent more suspicious. But we don't really need to know his intent to question the validity of his objectivity. But the issue of intent might just reaffirm that he is truly biased. That's what I meant by "double whammy".

The method to research the historical Jesus is heavily...clouded. Bias is grand sin to that pursuit. Is Aslan is a believer (or specifically a Muslim) because of the result of his academic research? If he claimed he is, this by itself would call into a question the very methods of his academic pursuit. Otherwise he isn't using that objective approach in order to become a believer regardless. So either way, I don't like his approach to historical Jesus. It's a much more complicated matter, to me, than simply saying A) this man is a vaunted religious scholar and having this as an 'accepted wisdom' and B) this man is a Muslim, therefore will not be fair and is seeking to debunk Jesus the Christ. I am very much in the middle of that and it is not the easiest thing to articulate in a few paragraphs on a message board.

Anyhow, I wouldn't personally say he was trying to debunk Christianity. I'd say he was genuinely trying to write a secular historical book. But, that said, he has to be simply biased on the subject. And along with his active belief in a 'competing' religion, it leaves the charge of biased 'debunkery' as possible.

Quote:

Shouldn't we at least accord him the respect he deserves based upon his academic and publishing history and weigh his arguments rather than summarily dismissing him because he's a Muslim?

We shouldn't dismiss him just because he's Muslim. But also, we shouldn't coddle him because he's Muslim. We should treat purported historians the same and call them out on their potential biases. When someone writes a book or even a simple article regarding any political subject discussed here in FYM, the author is always called into question. I don't see a difference here aside from the fact that a FOX News anchor didn't handle herself real well in trying to be critical in somewhat the same manner I am.

Full disclosure, I didn't finish his book and mostly went through some of the major points he was making.

I don't believe he was biased, as he argues the same things many Christian scholars have been arguing for decades, and even cites them. None of the information in his book, at least from what I read, was new to me. Many people who have studied these things from a historical perspective taking more into account than just the bible hold similar conclusions. Some do disagree, for a variety of reasons. What I personally can't stand is that a man who is arguing something many Christian scholars have argued is being accused of "bias" solely because he's Muslim. It's just not a fair opinion. There are some historical topics related to Jesus that I didn't see in his book that anyone with anti-Jesus bias could have easily used in order to "smear" Jesus. He didn't use that information, even though other scholars whose work I have read have used it.